【黑娃转载】（双语）美国专利法的直接侵权和间接侵权
发布时间：2020.02.27 福建省查看：1581 评论：11
本帖最后由 黑娃 于 2020-2-27 13:36 编辑
【双语】美国专利法的直接侵权和间接侵权
每日IP英文第322期：来源：Patent Law Essentials: A Concise Guide, 5th Edition, 2018, Alan L. Durham
编译：大岭IP
未经授权制造，使用，出售，许诺销售或将专利所覆盖的产品进口到美国的人是直接侵权者。因为鼓励或帮助他人的侵权行为，不是直接侵权者的人也可能承担同等的责任。这有时被称为“间接”或“从属”侵权。
One who, without authority, makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, or imports into the United States a product covered by a patent is a direct infringer. One who is not a direct infringer may be held equally liable for encouraging or contributing to infringement by someone else. This is sometimes referred to as “indirect” or “dependent” infringement.
通常，方法权利要求的直接侵权人执行每个必需的步骤。如果某些步骤是由一个人执行，而其余步骤是由另一个人执行，会发生什么情况？最近针对“分离侵权”的案件认为，如果两个参与者组成“联合企业” ，或者如果一个参与者控制了另一个，则该人可能会作为方法权利要求的直接侵权人承担责任，即使某些步骤是由其他人执行的。控制可以基于合同，也可以是委托人与代理人的关系。或者，一个行为者可以在执行必要步骤的同时规定参加一项活动或获得收益的条件，同时规定了完成这些活动的方式。在Eli Lilly＆Co.诉Teva Parenteral Medicines，Inc. 中，一种方法声称要求将药物与叶酸补充剂一起服用。尽管患者自行负责服用叶酸，但医生会指定每日剂量，并且他们要求寻求治疗的患者遵循其指导。因此，医师对专利方法的所有步骤的执行负有责任，并可能作为直接侵权者承担责任。
Normally, a direct infringer of a method claim performs each of the required steps. What happens if some steps are performed by one individual, and the rest by another? Recent cases addressing “divided infringement” have held that someone can be liable as a direct infringer of a method claim even though some of the steps are performed by someone else, if the two actors form a “joint enterprise,” or if one actor controls the other. The control can be based on a contract, or a relationship of principal and agent. Or one actor can condition participation in an activity, or receipt of a benefit, on performing the necessary steps, while dictating the manner in which they are to be done. In Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., a method claim required the administration of a drug with a folic acid supplement. Although patients were responsible for taking the folic acid themselves, physicians would specify the daily dose, and they would require patients seeking treatment to follow their instructions. Hence, physicians were responsible for the performance of all of the steps of the patented method, and they could be held liable as direct infringers.
间接侵权有两种形式-诱导侵权和帮助侵权。诱导的概念比较简单。任何人“积极地诱使”他人侵犯专利权的人都可能承担侵权责任。一个人不能仅仅通过出售可能被侵权使用的产品来诱使他人侵权。诱导需要“采取积极措施鼓励直接侵权。” 这些步骤的形式可能是宣传侵权产品，或指示购买者进行此类使用。
Indirect infringement comes in two forms—inducement of infringement and contributory infringement. The concept of inducement is the simpler one. Anyone who “actively induces” the infringement of a patent by another may be held liable as an infringer. One does not induce infringement merely by selling a product that might be put to an infringing use. Inducement requires “active steps taken to encourage direct infringement.” These steps might be in the form of advertising an infringing use of one’s product, or instructing purchasers to engage in such use.
在Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA，Inc.诉West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp.案中，一项获得专利的方法涉及使用药物来治疗痛风发作。被诉侵权者出售了相同的药物用于痛风的长期治疗，标签上只写着“如果您在服用[药物]时有痛风发作，请告知您的医疗保健提供者。” 医疗保健提供者可能建议服用更大剂量的药物来治疗发作，但该药物说明并未引发侵权行为。在Moleculon Research Corp.诉CBS，Inc. 中，法院得出相反的结果。CBS出售了流行的玩具Rubik’s Cube，Moleculon认为该产品侵犯了其旋转立方体拼图的专利。某些权利要求不是将拼图描述为物理对象，而是提出了一种通过旋转立方体的**面来解决拼图的方法。这些方法权利要求只能由执行方法步骤的人员（即，使用拼图的人）直接侵权，但是要对每位购买Rubik's Cube的消费者提起诉讼是不切实际的。尽管CBS并未直接侵权，但它通过提供指导表单使购买者实施专利方法来诱发侵权。
In Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp., a patented method involved the use of a medication to treat flare-ups of gout. The accused infringer sold the same medication for the long-term treatment of gout, with a label that merely said “if you have a gout flare while taking [the medication], tell your healthcare provider.” The healthcare provider might advise taking a stronger dose to treat the flare-up, but the instructions fell short of inducing infringement. In Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., the court reached a contrary result. CBS sold the popular toy known as Rubik’s Cube, a product that Moleculon believed to infringe its patent on a rotating-cube puzzle. Some of the claims, rather than describing the puzzle as a physical object, instead set out a method of solving the puzzle by rotating the facets of the cube. These method claims could be directly infringed only by someone performing the steps of the method—that is, by someone using the puzzle—but it would have been impractical to file suit against every consumer who purchased Rubik’s Cube. Even though CBS did not directly infringe, it induced infringement by supplying instruction sheets leading purchasers to practice the patented method.
尽管直接侵权人可能完全不知道专利的存在，但一个诱导侵权的人必须在知情的情况下这样做。在Global-Tech Appliances，Inc.诉SEB SA中，最高法院裁定，诱导责任需要对侵权行为有实际了解，或者需要“故意失明”。故意失明不仅仅意味着“故意漠视已知的风险。” 这意味着被告在知道其行为有可能导致专利侵权的“可能性很大”的情况下，采取了有意的行动来避免了解真相。在Global-Tech中，被告直接复制了一个成功的“冷接触”油炸锅，选择了不包括美国专利标记的面向海外市场的产品作为其模型 ，但没有通知其专利顾问其设计来源。法院在这些事实中发现了“故意失明”的证据。Although a direct infringer can be completely unaware of the existence of the patent, one who induces infringement must do so knowingly.In Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., the Supreme Court held that liability for inducement requires either actual awareness of the resulting infringement, or a case of “willful blindness.” Willful blindness means more than just “deliberate indifference to a known risk.” It means that the defendant, knowing there was a “high probability” that its actions would lead to patent infringement, took deliberate actions to avoid learning the truth. In Global-Tech, the defendant directly copied a successful “cool touch” deep fryer, chose as its model a product made for overseas markets that would not include U.S. patent markings, and failed to inform its patent counsel about the source of its design. The Court found in these facts evidence of “willful blindness.”
“帮助侵权人”是指满足以下所有条件的情况下，进口，销售或许诺销售专利组合产品的组件，或者专利方法中使用的材料或设备的人：•该物品是“专利发明的重要组成部分”；•该物品的进口，销售或许诺销售，是知道该物品是为了以侵权方式使用而“特别制造或经特别改装”的；•该物品不是“适用于实质性非侵权用途的通用部件或商品”。
A “contributory infringer” is one who imports, sells, or offers to sell a component of a patented combination, or a material or apparatus to be used in a patented process, if all of the following conditions are met:• The item is a “material part of the patented invention.”• The item is imported, sold or offered for sale with knowledge that the item was “especially made or especially adapted” for use in an infringing manner.• The item is not a “staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.”
许多获得专利的组合产品都包含常见且无法获得专利的单个部件。Oviatt的捕鼠器专利中，包括一个普通的乒乓球。Oviatt的专利不能阻止任何人制造，使用，进口，销售或许诺销售乒乓球，其用途显然与捕鼠器发明无关。发明人的合法垄断权利仅扩展到所要求保护的组合产品。但是，假设有人销售Oviatt捕鼠器除乒乓球外的其余组件。因为Oviatt专利的所有权利要求都要求有乒乓球，所以出售剩余的零件不会直接侵犯专利。但是，购买不完整诱捕器的任何人都有可能最终提供缺失的球，从而构成侵权的组合产品。如果专利权人被迫只能起诉那些组成为组合产品的人，即购买了不完整的捕鼠器并提供里自己的乒乓球的消费者，这对行使Oviatt的专利权将是不切实际的。
Many patented combinations include individual elements that themselves are common and unpatentable. The Oviatt mousetrap design includes an ordinary ping-pong ball. The Oviatt patent cannot prevent anyone from making, using, importing, selling, or offering to sell ping-pong balls, which have obvious uses unrelated to the mousetrap invention. The inventor’s legitimate monopoly extends only to the claimed combination. Suppose, however, that someone sold the remaining components of the Oviatt mousetrap without the ping-pong ball. Because all of the claims of the Oviatt patent require a ball, selling the remaining pieces would not directly infringe the patent.53 However, it is likely that anyone who purchased the incomplete trap would eventually supply the missing ball, thereby forming an infringing combination. If the patent owner were forced to sue only those who formed that combination—consumers who purchased an incomplete trap and supplied their own ping-pong ball— enforcement of the Oviatt patent would be impractical.
如果组件是“特别制造”以用于专利组合产品（例如，Oviatt专利中描述的管状结构），则进口，销售或许诺销售组合产品的该组件，将被专利法视为帮助侵权，而不是“ 适用于实质性非侵权用途的通用部件或商品”（例如乒乓球）。最初，法律没有对帮助侵权与诱导侵权进行区分，在诱导侵权的背景下考虑帮助侵权仍然是有意义的。乒乓球的销售本身不能被认为是侵犯Oviatt专利的诱导侵权，因为乒乓球可以用于其他用途。但是，单一用途设备的销售可以视为诱导侵权，因为该设备没有其他合理的用途。
Patent law treats as contributory infringement the importation, sale, or offer to sell a component of a claimed combination if the component is “especially made” for use in the patented combination (like the tubed structure depicted in the Oviatt patent) and not a “staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use” (like a ping-pong ball). Originally, the law made no distinction between contributory infringement and inducement, and it is still useful to consider contributory infringement in the inducement context. The sale of a ping-pong ball could not, by itself, be regarded as an inducement to infringe the Oviatt patent because the ping-pong ball could be used for something else. The sale of the single-purpose apparatus could, however, be viewed as an inducement to infringe because the apparatus has no other plausible use.
“通用商品”的概念最明显地适用于大量出售且可用于许多应用的基本材料。普通的螺母和螺栓以及普通的化学药品将被视为通用商品，其销售不会触发共同侵权。但在这种情况下，“通用商品”甚至也适用于只有一种“实质性”非侵权用途的商品。如果不这样的话，专利权人的垄断权利实际上将扩大到非专利的方法或组合产品上。如果Oviatt可以阻止未经授权销售的乒乓球，那么他将不仅对自己的发明而且对乒乓球也拥有有效的垄断权。
The concept of a “staple article of commerce” most obviously applies to basic materials sold in large quantities and useful in numerous applications. Ordinary nuts and bolts and common chemicals would be considered staples, and their sale would not trigger contributory infringement. But in this context “staple” also applies to goods having even one “substantial” noninfringing use. If it did not, in practical effect the patentee’s monopoly would extend to unpatented uses and combinations. If Oviatt could prevent the unlicensed sale of ping-pong balls, he would have an effective monopoly not only on his own invention but also on the game of ping-pong.
-End-
【双语】美国专利法的直接侵权和间接侵权
每日IP英文第322期：来源：Patent Law Essentials: A Concise Guide, 5th Edition, 2018, Alan L. Durham
编译：大岭IP
未经授权制造，使用，出售，许诺销售或将专利所覆盖的产品进口到美国的人是直接侵权者。因为鼓励或帮助他人的侵权行为，不是直接侵权者的人也可能承担同等的责任。这有时被称为“间接”或“从属”侵权。
One who, without authority, makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, or imports into the United States a product covered by a patent is a direct infringer. One who is not a direct infringer may be held equally liable for encouraging or contributing to infringement by someone else. This is sometimes referred to as “indirect” or “dependent” infringement.
通常，方法权利要求的直接侵权人执行每个必需的步骤。如果某些步骤是由一个人执行，而其余步骤是由另一个人执行，会发生什么情况？最近针对“分离侵权”的案件认为，如果两个参与者组成“联合企业” ，或者如果一个参与者控制了另一个，则该人可能会作为方法权利要求的直接侵权人承担责任，即使某些步骤是由其他人执行的。控制可以基于合同，也可以是委托人与代理人的关系。或者，一个行为者可以在执行必要步骤的同时规定参加一项活动或获得收益的条件，同时规定了完成这些活动的方式。在Eli Lilly＆Co.诉Teva Parenteral Medicines，Inc. 中，一种方法声称要求将药物与叶酸补充剂一起服用。尽管患者自行负责服用叶酸，但医生会指定每日剂量，并且他们要求寻求治疗的患者遵循其指导。因此，医师对专利方法的所有步骤的执行负有责任，并可能作为直接侵权者承担责任。
Normally, a direct infringer of a method claim performs each of the required steps. What happens if some steps are performed by one individual, and the rest by another? Recent cases addressing “divided infringement” have held that someone can be liable as a direct infringer of a method claim even though some of the steps are performed by someone else, if the two actors form a “joint enterprise,” or if one actor controls the other. The control can be based on a contract, or a relationship of principal and agent. Or one actor can condition participation in an activity, or receipt of a benefit, on performing the necessary steps, while dictating the manner in which they are to be done. In Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., a method claim required the administration of a drug with a folic acid supplement. Although patients were responsible for taking the folic acid themselves, physicians would specify the daily dose, and they would require patients seeking treatment to follow their instructions. Hence, physicians were responsible for the performance of all of the steps of the patented method, and they could be held liable as direct infringers.
间接侵权有两种形式-诱导侵权和帮助侵权。诱导的概念比较简单。任何人“积极地诱使”他人侵犯专利权的人都可能承担侵权责任。一个人不能仅仅通过出售可能被侵权使用的产品来诱使他人侵权。诱导需要“采取积极措施鼓励直接侵权。” 这些步骤的形式可能是宣传侵权产品，或指示购买者进行此类使用。
Indirect infringement comes in two forms—inducement of infringement and contributory infringement. The concept of inducement is the simpler one. Anyone who “actively induces” the infringement of a patent by another may be held liable as an infringer. One does not induce infringement merely by selling a product that might be put to an infringing use. Inducement requires “active steps taken to encourage direct infringement.” These steps might be in the form of advertising an infringing use of one’s product, or instructing purchasers to engage in such use.
在Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA，Inc.诉West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp.案中，一项获得专利的方法涉及使用药物来治疗痛风发作。被诉侵权者出售了相同的药物用于痛风的长期治疗，标签上只写着“如果您在服用[药物]时有痛风发作，请告知您的医疗保健提供者。” 医疗保健提供者可能建议服用更大剂量的药物来治疗发作，但该药物说明并未引发侵权行为。在Moleculon Research Corp.诉CBS，Inc. 中，法院得出相反的结果。CBS出售了流行的玩具Rubik’s Cube，Moleculon认为该产品侵犯了其旋转立方体拼图的专利。某些权利要求不是将拼图描述为物理对象，而是提出了一种通过旋转立方体的**面来解决拼图的方法。这些方法权利要求只能由执行方法步骤的人员（即，使用拼图的人）直接侵权，但是要对每位购买Rubik's Cube的消费者提起诉讼是不切实际的。尽管CBS并未直接侵权，但它通过提供指导表单使购买者实施专利方法来诱发侵权。
In Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp., a patented method involved the use of a medication to treat flare-ups of gout. The accused infringer sold the same medication for the long-term treatment of gout, with a label that merely said “if you have a gout flare while taking [the medication], tell your healthcare provider.” The healthcare provider might advise taking a stronger dose to treat the flare-up, but the instructions fell short of inducing infringement. In Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., the court reached a contrary result. CBS sold the popular toy known as Rubik’s Cube, a product that Moleculon believed to infringe its patent on a rotating-cube puzzle. Some of the claims, rather than describing the puzzle as a physical object, instead set out a method of solving the puzzle by rotating the facets of the cube. These method claims could be directly infringed only by someone performing the steps of the method—that is, by someone using the puzzle—but it would have been impractical to file suit against every consumer who purchased Rubik’s Cube. Even though CBS did not directly infringe, it induced infringement by supplying instruction sheets leading purchasers to practice the patented method.
尽管直接侵权人可能完全不知道专利的存在，但一个诱导侵权的人必须在知情的情况下这样做。在Global-Tech Appliances，Inc.诉SEB SA中，最高法院裁定，诱导责任需要对侵权行为有实际了解，或者需要“故意失明”。故意失明不仅仅意味着“故意漠视已知的风险。” 这意味着被告在知道其行为有可能导致专利侵权的“可能性很大”的情况下，采取了有意的行动来避免了解真相。在Global-Tech中，被告直接复制了一个成功的“冷接触”油炸锅，选择了不包括美国专利标记的面向海外市场的产品作为其模型 ，但没有通知其专利顾问其设计来源。法院在这些事实中发现了“故意失明”的证据。Although a direct infringer can be completely unaware of the existence of the patent, one who induces infringement must do so knowingly.In Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., the Supreme Court held that liability for inducement requires either actual awareness of the resulting infringement, or a case of “willful blindness.” Willful blindness means more than just “deliberate indifference to a known risk.” It means that the defendant, knowing there was a “high probability” that its actions would lead to patent infringement, took deliberate actions to avoid learning the truth. In Global-Tech, the defendant directly copied a successful “cool touch” deep fryer, chose as its model a product made for overseas markets that would not include U.S. patent markings, and failed to inform its patent counsel about the source of its design. The Court found in these facts evidence of “willful blindness.”
“帮助侵权人”是指满足以下所有条件的情况下，进口，销售或许诺销售专利组合产品的组件，或者专利方法中使用的材料或设备的人：•该物品是“专利发明的重要组成部分”；•该物品的进口，销售或许诺销售，是知道该物品是为了以侵权方式使用而“特别制造或经特别改装”的；•该物品不是“适用于实质性非侵权用途的通用部件或商品”。
A “contributory infringer” is one who imports, sells, or offers to sell a component of a patented combination, or a material or apparatus to be used in a patented process, if all of the following conditions are met:• The item is a “material part of the patented invention.”• The item is imported, sold or offered for sale with knowledge that the item was “especially made or especially adapted” for use in an infringing manner.• The item is not a “staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.”
许多获得专利的组合产品都包含常见且无法获得专利的单个部件。Oviatt的捕鼠器专利中，包括一个普通的乒乓球。Oviatt的专利不能阻止任何人制造，使用，进口，销售或许诺销售乒乓球，其用途显然与捕鼠器发明无关。发明人的合法垄断权利仅扩展到所要求保护的组合产品。但是，假设有人销售Oviatt捕鼠器除乒乓球外的其余组件。因为Oviatt专利的所有权利要求都要求有乒乓球，所以出售剩余的零件不会直接侵犯专利。但是，购买不完整诱捕器的任何人都有可能最终提供缺失的球，从而构成侵权的组合产品。如果专利权人被迫只能起诉那些组成为组合产品的人，即购买了不完整的捕鼠器并提供里自己的乒乓球的消费者，这对行使Oviatt的专利权将是不切实际的。
Many patented combinations include individual elements that themselves are common and unpatentable. The Oviatt mousetrap design includes an ordinary ping-pong ball. The Oviatt patent cannot prevent anyone from making, using, importing, selling, or offering to sell ping-pong balls, which have obvious uses unrelated to the mousetrap invention. The inventor’s legitimate monopoly extends only to the claimed combination. Suppose, however, that someone sold the remaining components of the Oviatt mousetrap without the ping-pong ball. Because all of the claims of the Oviatt patent require a ball, selling the remaining pieces would not directly infringe the patent.53 However, it is likely that anyone who purchased the incomplete trap would eventually supply the missing ball, thereby forming an infringing combination. If the patent owner were forced to sue only those who formed that combination—consumers who purchased an incomplete trap and supplied their own ping-pong ball— enforcement of the Oviatt patent would be impractical.
如果组件是“特别制造”以用于专利组合产品（例如，Oviatt专利中描述的管状结构），则进口，销售或许诺销售组合产品的该组件，将被专利法视为帮助侵权，而不是“ 适用于实质性非侵权用途的通用部件或商品”（例如乒乓球）。最初，法律没有对帮助侵权与诱导侵权进行区分，在诱导侵权的背景下考虑帮助侵权仍然是有意义的。乒乓球的销售本身不能被认为是侵犯Oviatt专利的诱导侵权，因为乒乓球可以用于其他用途。但是，单一用途设备的销售可以视为诱导侵权，因为该设备没有其他合理的用途。
Patent law treats as contributory infringement the importation, sale, or offer to sell a component of a claimed combination if the component is “especially made” for use in the patented combination (like the tubed structure depicted in the Oviatt patent) and not a “staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use” (like a ping-pong ball). Originally, the law made no distinction between contributory infringement and inducement, and it is still useful to consider contributory infringement in the inducement context. The sale of a ping-pong ball could not, by itself, be regarded as an inducement to infringe the Oviatt patent because the ping-pong ball could be used for something else. The sale of the single-purpose apparatus could, however, be viewed as an inducement to infringe because the apparatus has no other plausible use.
“通用商品”的概念最明显地适用于大量出售且可用于许多应用的基本材料。普通的螺母和螺栓以及普通的化学药品将被视为通用商品，其销售不会触发共同侵权。但在这种情况下，“通用商品”甚至也适用于只有一种“实质性”非侵权用途的商品。如果不这样的话，专利权人的垄断权利实际上将扩大到非专利的方法或组合产品上。如果Oviatt可以阻止未经授权销售的乒乓球，那么他将不仅对自己的发明而且对乒乓球也拥有有效的垄断权。
The concept of a “staple article of commerce” most obviously applies to basic materials sold in large quantities and useful in numerous applications. Ordinary nuts and bolts and common chemicals would be considered staples, and their sale would not trigger contributory infringement. But in this context “staple” also applies to goods having even one “substantial” noninfringing use. If it did not, in practical effect the patentee’s monopoly would extend to unpatented uses and combinations. If Oviatt could prevent the unlicensed sale of ping-pong balls, he would have an effective monopoly not only on his own invention but also on the game of ping-pong.
-End-
如果您对知识产权实务也感兴趣
欢迎添加我的个人微信：
dalingIPR
加入知识产权实务交流群
黑娃：欢迎大腿们回帖交流心得
评论列表
快速回复
黑娃
版主
[福建省]
主题：209 回帖：5271 积分：89622
TA最近发帖
热帖推荐
Clong-ZL
2020/02/27 16:37 [来自山东省]
0 举报黑娃
2020/02/28 08:18 [来自福建省]
0 举报LAB
2020/02/28 09:11 [来自湖北省]
0 举报zsw_xiangyuan
2020/02/28 09:18 [来自江苏省]
0 举报帮帮
2020/02/28 12:19 [来自河南省]
0 举报sunmoon1
2020/03/03 13:58 [来自广东省]
0 举报